Should Sellersburg Indiana Bite the Bullet?

HARBESON: Biting the bullet is tough to swallow

SELLERSBURG — Last month, I wrote a column regarding Sellersburg’s possible purchase of the privately owned Nolan Fieldhouse, so when I heard there was going to be a town meeting at the fieldhouse to discuss the issue, I decided to attend.

The place was bubbling with activity — kids playing, adults chatting. I noticed many people in attendance wearing identical T-shirts. I knew there was something important written on those shirts because women don’t wear neon lime green without a very good reason.

The print was hard for me to see but after staring at several women’s chests as they walked by, hoping I didn’t look too strange, I finally got a good look. It said, “Bite the bullet; buy the Fieldhouse.”

I’m not sure who was supposed to be the intended recipient of that message. In general usage, the phrase “bite the bullet” means to endure a painful or otherwise unpleasant situation that is seen as unavoidable.

However, that doesn’t fit this situation because increasing government spending by purchasing this private property is certainly avoidable — all the town has to do is, well, nothing. (The town did not vote to purchase the building at this meeting, but they did vote to continue pursuing the idea.)

Several “green shirts” spoke during the meeting. Many were parents and grandparents of children who directly benefit from the facility. They were sincere, articulate and passionate about the benefits their families received. These families attended this meeting because they love the fieldhouse and want to keep using it.

Of course, there were also many families who did not attend this meeting. Families who were busy with activities their children enjoy and benefit from, using facilities and equipment they worked hard to purchase with their own money and through private fundraising efforts. In short, families who were elsewhere simply because their interests do not mesh with a fieldhouse.

But never mind them; this is about families who want Sellersburg’s taxpayers to buy this facility. Can you guess the main talking point in favor of this increased government spending? It was, of course, “the children.”

Although many people spoke in favor, two ladies in particular did an exceptionally fine job of using the children, as they scolded and attempted to instill guilt in any town resident who attended hoping to halt government growth.

This really wasn’t quite fair. After all, these two ladies have more experience than most in telling people it’s a good idea to turn privately funded alternatives over to government because they were instrumental in morphing what was previously a private school into the now government-funded Rock Creek charter school.

As they continued to promote government ownership of the fieldhouse, one of them lectured the crowd on developmental assets, the name for the set of values used to develop curriculum in their government school. I must be a slow learner because I’m still not clear which asset supports government over private voluntary means to achieve goals.

Even so, I do agree wholeheartedly about doing things “for the children.” As a matter of fact, in this situation I can think of at least three.

First, we can explain to children why dependence and reliance on government causes problems — economically, morally and socially. Second, we can help our children understand that one family’s interests are not more important than another’s.

And perhaps most important of all, we can explain to children that while it’s one thing to promote the idea that some may want to voluntarily chomp on a bullet in the hopes of reaching a goal, it’s quite another to use government and force other people to bite one.

Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson wonders if there is ever a good reason to wear neon lime green.

Basketball Courts as a Government Service

HARBESON: A big ‘whoops’ to government-funded hoops

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — A couple of years ago, the town of Sellersburg decided to lease Nolan Fieldhouse, a site used for basketball and other recreational activities. The fieldhouse was originally built to operate as a private business, but closed when the owner moved from the area.

Sellersburg is losing money on this venture. Lots of money. Last year, the losses were more than $10,000 per month. So what is the proposal now that the lease commitment is about to end and they could just get out?

They want to spend more money and buy it, of course.

On the one hand, officials say that purchasing the property would save money on monthly costs. But then when the details are reported and everyone can see the savings won’t come close to covering the losses, suddenly it’s not about saving money at all. It’s about providing a government “service.”

How can this not be about the money? Well, it has to do with how governments play the game. Let me see if I can explain it in basketball terms. This is how a game scenario would play out if government participated: It’s the last few seconds and the government team is behind. A councilperson pulls up for a jumper and shoots. It’s an air ball, of course, and the buzzer sounds.

Now, a normal game would be over but in this game the government team — and it’s always only the government team that gets to use this special rule — simply directs the scorekeeper to take points earned by the opposing team and give them to the government team.

Understand it better now? Numbers are not as important when you can just take what’s earned by others.

Of course, Sellersburg isn’t the only government that’s involved in playtime. They all do it. It’s costly — the Clarksville Redevelopment Commission just committed funds to the Clarksville Parks and Recreation Department for equipment and property maintenance in the amount of $300,000 — this is per year, for five years.

It’s also divisive; we’ve seen the battles Jeffersonville is experiencing with the new RiverStage, wooded hiking paths and softball fields.

It’s difficult to stop this growth once it gets rolling, but Sellersburg has the chance. If the taxpayers stand strong, maybe they can block this shot and convince the council not to turn more private property into government property.

Maybe Sellersburg can avoid the costs, divisiveness and problems that follow increases in government control.

Don’t misunderstand. Sports facilities are great; I’ve spent a lot of time and money in private sports facilities. But I still do not support using government to force other people who do not use the fieldhouse to pay for it. People can fund the recreational activities of their choice.

If those who enjoy using the fieldhouse really want it to remain, they need to get in the game and find a way to make it happen using private and voluntary means rather than having their recreational choices partially funded by Sellersburg taxpayers, particularly the ones who have no interest in the activities offered there.

Perhaps the person running the Fieldhouse’s Facebook page could focus on networking to search for ways to run it privately rather than encouraging fans to attend government meetings to push for continued government involvement.

I don’t know if the fieldhouse can operate privately and be successful. But if the owner can’t make it work, perhaps someone else wants the property for another business venture. There were other businesses interested at the time Sellersburg decided to lease two years ago.

I don’t know if those businesses or any others would be interested now. All I know is that this should be the property owner’s concern, and not taxpayers who never signed on to take the risk.

Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson has learned how to save lots of money on recreation — she just shoots free throws.

Flush Forced Annexations

HARBESON: I was forced to write this column

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Sellersburg government’s attempt to forcibly annex the Covered Bridge subdivision and surrounding areas received more court action last week. Many people in the area do not want to be annexed and by law if at least 65 percent of property owners object and sign a remonstrance, they can stop a local government from grabbing control. In this case, a whopping 81.5 percent of the property owners signed on.

Usually, that’s the end of it, but there is a controversy over whether many of those people who signed can actually do so. Sellersburg government says most of the signatories are property owners who lost their right to object because of a previous agreement made with the original developers when Sellersburg provided sewer service.

This is being battled out in the government court system and Sellersburg’s lawyer explained that the town held up their end of the deal. He said, “Once this sewer service goes into effect, that’s a condition that triggers this particular provision.”

That certainly sets up an interesting situation for the homeowner. I can imagine him now, contentedly sitting on his new toilet in his new home for the very first time, probably reading the opinion page of this newspaper and completely oblivious to the future implications of that first flush.

I have even greater sympathy for the property owners outside of these subdivisions. When the subdivision homeowners are subtracted from the total it still leaves about 136 official signatures. If the battle is about the right to remonstrate, then what about these people? Where do they fit in?

They did not buy their property under any developer-government sewer agreement, so aren’t their rights being completely ignored? If their right to remonstrate for the 65 percent figure is tied to the people in these subdivisions, then their right to remonstrate has been completely taken away from them when they didn’t even sign anything.

It’s one thing to fight over an agreement that developers made with the government over sewer services in those subdivisions, but it’s an entirely other matter for these people who had absolutely nothing to do with that. Do these 136 property owners have the right on their own to tell Sellersburg to go jump in the sewer?

Will their rights even be taken into account during this current court battle? The ability to remonstrate has to exist for Sellersburg to say people signed away the right. So if the courts say the property owners inside the subdivisions can’t remonstrate because they did indeed sign this right away, then it will also be taking the right away for those who did not sign any deed restriction. It would be a self-contradictory judgment.

Forced annexations have to be one of the worst aspects of government and Indiana is not the only state wrestling over this kind of abuse. Last week Rock Hill, S.C., caught lots of attention. The situation was quite similar to what we’ve seen here locally in that the property owners were receiving a single service from a town government, except in this case the service was water. The government made news when they threatened to turn off water service, not for nonpayment, but as a threat against property owners objecting to forced annexation.

Isn’t it amazing how governments work to grow and expand? When a government entity gets involved in providing a service, it’s not good enough that people simply pay for the service.

No, unfortunately power hungry government control freaks will go for nothing less than complete territorial rule. There is one thing to be thankful for though, at least they don’t mark their territory like dogs do.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson can usually be found hanging out in the yard because her favorite activity is marking her territory.